NAV 2003 vs Norton corp 8.x
jeffrey03-28-04, 06:20 PMsomethingi don't need the network management capabilities of corp (i have standalone
comp, running winxp pro) and NAV 2004 had boot stall problems, and it used
far too much ram. also, i don't have 2003 in auto protect. Ionly use email
scan and script protect.
does anyone know if there is significant detection advantages to using corp
8.x vs 2003? is it better at detecting worms, trojans, scanning compressed
files, etc?
Randy Snyder03-31-04, 04:01 PMsomethingjeffrey wrote:
> i don't need the network management capabilities of corp (i have standalone
> comp, running winxp pro) and NAV 2004 had boot stall problems, and it used
> far too much ram. also, i don't have 2003 in auto protect. Ionly use email
> scan and script protect.
>
> does anyone know if there is significant detection advantages to using corp
> 8.x vs 2003? is it better at detecting worms, trojans, scanning compressed
> files, etc?
>
>
There is not detection advantage. The corp version is designed to be
managed by a parent server and can get updated defs from your internal
LiveUpdate server as opposed to the LiveUpdate service from Symantec.
The corp version also does not protect against scripts since these are
common in the corporate environment.
jeffrey03-31-04, 04:01 PMsomethingthank you, randy. guess i will stick with 2003.
"Randy Snyder" <aggie07@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vBqac.3367$Ak.339@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> jeffrey wrote:
standalone[color=blue]
used[color=blue]
email[color=blue]
corp[color=blue]
compressed[color=blue]
> There is not detection advantage. The corp version is designed to be
> managed by a parent server and can get updated defs from your internal
> LiveUpdate server as opposed to the LiveUpdate service from Symantec.
> The corp version also does not protect against scripts since these are
> common in the corporate environment.
comp, running winxp pro) and NAV 2004 had boot stall problems, and it used
far too much ram. also, i don't have 2003 in auto protect. Ionly use email
scan and script protect.
does anyone know if there is significant detection advantages to using corp
8.x vs 2003? is it better at detecting worms, trojans, scanning compressed
files, etc?
Randy Snyder03-31-04, 04:01 PMsomethingjeffrey wrote:
> i don't need the network management capabilities of corp (i have standalone
> comp, running winxp pro) and NAV 2004 had boot stall problems, and it used
> far too much ram. also, i don't have 2003 in auto protect. Ionly use email
> scan and script protect.
>
> does anyone know if there is significant detection advantages to using corp
> 8.x vs 2003? is it better at detecting worms, trojans, scanning compressed
> files, etc?
>
>
There is not detection advantage. The corp version is designed to be
managed by a parent server and can get updated defs from your internal
LiveUpdate server as opposed to the LiveUpdate service from Symantec.
The corp version also does not protect against scripts since these are
common in the corporate environment.
jeffrey03-31-04, 04:01 PMsomethingthank you, randy. guess i will stick with 2003.
"Randy Snyder" <aggie07@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vBqac.3367$Ak.339@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> jeffrey wrote:
standalone[color=blue]
used[color=blue]
email[color=blue]
corp[color=blue]
compressed[color=blue]
> There is not detection advantage. The corp version is designed to be
> managed by a parent server and can get updated defs from your internal
> LiveUpdate server as opposed to the LiveUpdate service from Symantec.
> The corp version also does not protect against scripts since these are
> common in the corporate environment.